The legend goes that, one day, as the two girls were riding the bus home, a young, ordinary looking man hopped into the vehicle. Upon getting in, he prowled towards the girls like a wolf focusing on its prey. Once he reached them, he inquired about their names as if he were a distant relative trying to recognise a family member. It was a casual encounter; there was no fear, no intimidation. Oblivious of his plans, they confirmed their identities, a mistake they would soon realise. Spotting his target, he pulled out his gun immediately and shot one of them in the head while injuring the other. The girl was Malala Yousafzai, 15, a high school student determined to read, write and be independent. The assassin belonged to the Taliban, an organisation infamous for its disdain towards women. They later took responsibility through a public letter explaining that they shot her not because she wanted to read and write, as they do not oppose female education but because her writings and views were too ‘western’. It was a stupefying explanation, was it not? That they would approve the killing of a defenceless young girl just because she was too progressive or liberal, in their opinion. The blood gushed out of her head as she lay injured on the floor, her eyes closed, her mind slipping into darkness, her pulse fading away. There was little hope for her survival. The perpetuator, after watching her get hit, ran from the crime scene anticipating his mission had been accomplished, the mission in which he had put down one of his most dangerous enemies, a fiercely independent woman. He was wrong. He did not know that she was a real fighter, a brave soldier unlike him, a coward who takes the lives of innocent people in the name of Islam, nor did he reckon that she would survive her injuries. The gun that was supposed to have killed her, he could not believe would backfire. Indeed, there is no doubt that the gun backfired, but not in the literal sense because, after the attack, she had to undergo surgery and then had to travel to the UK for specialised treatment. It backfired, indeed, because the firearm missed all its objectives. First, it failed to eliminate Malala Yousafzai. Second, it could not suppress her ideology. And third, the attack on a young girl would, from then on always, haunt them like a nightmare, exposing their savagery to the world and threatening their philosophy being eradicated altogether. Knowing her story, most of us would agree that Malala is courageous and a real fighter. Although these two personality traits — chivalry and resilience — are most revered in our society, Malala is controversial, if not 100 percent villainous. I have also listened, just like you, to the stories about how she was first spotted and later trained by western journalists to use her to promote their values disregarding her local traditions. I do not believe them. Now let us imagine a soldier for a moment who, while wearing his uniform, dies in the line of duty for his country. The whole nation, without any controversy, would appreciate his services. To be regarded as a hero, the two basic characteristics that the soldier has shown, if you think about it, are the same: courage and resilience. I wonder why one person, who shows the same characteristics, is esteemed so highly whereas the other is made to look controversial. Is there a double standard that we harbour in ourselves? Or have we learnt as a nation to promote violence, even in the traits we deem important for our moral and religious wellbeing? Let me further elaborate my point: in the midst of an argument, you must also have heard the claim that we will destroy our enemy no matter how strong, with our valour, commitment and of course our atomic bombs. Listening to them, do you not agree that chivalry accompanied by violence is a covetable virtue in Pakistan? I guess the answer is yes. Maybe as a security state we feel threatened by our much bigger and much more powerful neighbouring country. We consider anyone who takes up arms against the mighty foe to be a hero. At the same time, the one who works to improve this relationship or tries to reduce the animosity between the two nuclear armed states is a coward, a paid enemy agent and unpatriotic leader. Malala has followed the path of similar ‘cowardice’ leading to the controversy surrounding her in Pakistan. But for the rest of the world, by taking a bullet in her head, she has proved that her mind and her intelligence are more powerful than guns, suicide bombings and the public executions of all the jihadists combined together. Terrorism can only spawn more enemies whereas her mission is to make friends. That victory lies in extending a helping hand; it slips away from the hands holding a gun. Patience is also a form of courage; it wins over hearts and souls. Wars can be fought through peaceful struggle without promoting violence. She is fighting that war and defeating the enemy. Her strategy is working. Is it not time for us to apply the same strategy as a nation? The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com